to the legatee, and that it transferred from him to his heir. Consequently, these rulings are reversed: his debts are paid, his bequests are executed, those upon whom he would have emancipated are emancipated, and he [the heir] has his [the legatee's] wala’, exclusively for the males among his heirs. Among these is that if the bequeathed object were a slave woman, and the heir had intercourse with her and she bore him a child, she becomes an umm walad for him, and her child is free; because he had intercourse with her while she was in his ownership, and he owes her value to the legatee if he accepts her. If it is said: How could you rule for her emancipation here, when she is not emancipated by his mere manumission of her? We say: Istilad (having a child from a slave woman) is stronger, which is why it is valid from a mentally incompetent person, a mortgagor, a father, and an insolvent partner, even if their manumission would not be effective (15). According to the other view, his child (16) remains a slave, and the slave woman remains in a state of slavery. If the legatee has intercourse with her before accepting her, this constitutes acceptance of her, and ownership is established for him thereby; because it is not permissible except in ownership, so his proceeding with it is proof of his choice of ownership, resembling one who has the right of raj'ah (revocation in a revocable divorce) having intercourse, or one who has an option in a sale having intercourse with the sold slave woman, or one who has the option to annul a marriage having intercourse with his wife.

Section: A bequest is valid both absolutely and conditionally. The absolute is for him to say: "If I die, then my third is for the poor, or for Zayd." The conditional is for him to say: "If I die from this illness of mine, or in this town, or on this journey of mine, then my third is for the poor." If he recovers from his illness, returns from his journey, or leaves the town, and then dies, the conditional bequest becomes void, and the absolute bequest remains. Ahmad said regarding one who makes a bequest if he dies from this illness or this journey of his, and he does not change his bequest, and then dies after that: He has no bequest. This is also the position of al-Hasan, al-Thawri, al-Shafi’i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Reason (Ahl al-Ra’y). Malik said: If he says it verbally and does not write a document, it is as such; but if he writes a document, then recovers from his illness and acknowledges the document, his bequest remains as it was, provided he does not revoke it. Our position is that it is a bequest with a condition, and the condition was not met, so it became void, as if he had not written a document, or as if he had bequeathed to a group who died before him; and because he restricted his bequest with a restriction, he may not exceed it, as we have mentioned. And if he says to one...